Attending an Orthodox baptism?

[PraiseChrist]

From a Catholic perspective, is attending an Orthodox baptism wrong? Thank you, God bless

 

[camkutz]

No it’s not wrong.

 

[PraiseChrist]

Thank you

 

[twf]

Their sacraments are valid. Not only that, from a Catholic perspective, Orthodox Christians are permitted to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. While you may not ordinarily receive communion at an Orthodox liturgy, there is certainly no issue with you attending. I had the honour of attending my aunt’s Chrismation into Orthodoxy last year (she was a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy - it would get a little messier if we were talking about a Catholic who had left the Church for Orthodoxy).

 

[PaulfromIowa]

There is no reason that Catholics should not attend an Eastern Orthodox or Protestant baptism. The Catholic Church accepts the validity of Orthodox and most Protestant baptisms. Exceptions to this would include a baptized Catholic being re-baptized in another Church; which would be very problematic, from a Catholic point of view.

 

[MorEphrem]

I’m a bit troubled that the question is asked (that it is wrong that you asked it, but that it would ever be a question in the mind of a Catholic). Even the whole approach of its validity making attendance permissible is a bit of Western legalism. In the Middle East, if my niece was being baptized at the Syriac Orthodox church, it wouldn’t even enter into my mind to ask if it was acceptable.

 

[twf]

I’m a bit troubled that the question is asked (that it is wrong that you asked it, but that it would ever be a question in the mind of a Catholic). Even the whole approach of its validity making attendance permissible is a bit of Western legalism. In the Middle East, if my niece was being baptized at the Syriac Orthodox church, it wouldn’t even enter into my mind to ask if it was acceptable.

I didn’t say validity is what makes it permissible to attend. I would likely attend the baptism of a friend who was entering into the Mormon or Jehovah Witness faith despite the fact that the Church does not consider their baptism valid. The fact that Orthodox baptism is valid, from a Catholic perspective, means its all the more reason to rejoice…for the individual has truly been baptized into Christ, is truly a new creation, and a Catholic can rightfully rejoice in that. I don’t see how that is “legalism”, which in Christian circles is typically seen as a “dirty word”.
On the flip side, while Catholics have no issue attending Orthodox liturgies, do you remember what happened on the Holy Father’s recent trip to Georgia? The local Orthodox were discouraged from attending the papal Mass. Their leaders told them it would be inappropriate to worship with Catholics. Is that an example of Eastern legalism?

 

[adamhovey1988]

No, as long as they weren’t already baptized. Remember a valid trinitarian baptism is a valid trinitarian baptism it doesn’t matter where it’s at

 

[PraiseChrist]

I’m a bit troubled that the question is asked (that it is wrong that you asked it, but that it would ever be a question in the mind of a Catholic). Even the whole approach of its validity making attendance permissible is a bit of Western legalism. In the Middle East, if my niece was being baptized at the Syriac Orthodox church, it wouldn’t even enter into my mind to ask if it was acceptable.

I tend to be a bit scrupulous a times, which is why I wanted to check what the Church teaches.

I didn’t mention this when I asked the question:
Would it make it wrong to attend the Orthodox baptism (of an infant) if the father is Orthodox, but the mother is a baptized Catholic, and they were married in the Orthodox Church (I’m not sure if the Catholic Church recognized their marriage or not)? Or that wouldn’t make a difference?The supposed baptism is a while from now, but I want to be sure before I go…Thank you all and God bless

 

[twf]

I tend to be a bit scrupulous a times, which is why I wanted to check what the Church teaches.

I didn’t mention this when I asked the question:
Would it make it wrong to attend the Orthodox baptism (of an infant) if the father is Orthodox, but the mother is a baptized Catholic, and they were married in the Orthodox Church (I’m not sure if the Catholic Church recognized their marriage or not)? Or that wouldn’t make a difference?The supposed baptism is a while from now, but I want to be sure before I go…Thank you all and God bless

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox marriages even if one party is Catholic and even if the Catholic party did NOT obtain permission to marry outside the Catholic Church. It is still a valid marriage. This is distinct from other scenarios where a Catholic party attempts marriage in a non-Catholic ceremony without permission (a Protestant or non-Christian ceremony) - in such cases there is no valid marriage from a Catholic perspective.

 

[PraiseChrist]

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox marriages even if one party is Catholic and even if the Catholic party did NOT obtain permission to marry outside the Catholic Church. It is still a valid marriage. This is distinct from other scenarios where a Catholic party attempts marriage in a non-Catholic ceremony without permission (a Protestant or non-Christian ceremony) - in such cases there is no valid marriage from a Catholic perspective.

Hi, thanks for answering. I have another question
How are SSPX marriages not valid, but Orthodox marriages are?

Thank you, God bless

 

[MorEphrem]

I didn’t say validity is what makes it permissible to attend. I would likely attend the baptism of a friend who was entering into the Mormon or Jehovah Witness faith despite the fact that the Church does not consider their baptism valid. The fact that Orthodox baptism is valid, from a Catholic perspective, means its all the more reason to rejoice…for the individual has truly been baptized into Christ, is truly a new creation, and a Catholic can rightfully rejoice in that. I don’t see how that is “legalism”, which in Christian circles is typically seen as a “dirty word”.
On the flip side, while Catholics have no issue attending Orthodox liturgies, do you remember what happened on the Holy Father’s recent trip to Georgia? The local Orthodox were discouraged from attending the papal Mass. Their leaders told them it would be inappropriate to worship with Catholics. Is that an example of Eastern legalism?

It’s actually a problem that you would attend a simulation of a Christian rite. But I was commenting more so on the fact that the Latin mind goes immediately to validity, no need to get defensive.

If I’m expected to defend the Georgian Orthodox because we’re all ambiguously Eastern (“or something”), the one who holds that idea will be thoroughly disappointed. Nor is that an analogous situation. That’s polemical rather than legalistic. It isn’t prompted by the adherence to the application of a technical principle, but rather a petty polemic.

PraiseChrist:

I tend to be a bit scrupulous a times, which is why I wanted to check what the Church teaches.

Completely understandable. I was just commented more so on a general trend than, again, this particular instance.

 

[Hospodi_pomilui]

Hi, thanks for answering. I have another question
How are SSPX marriages not valid, but Orthodox marriages are?

Thank you, God bless

In general, a Roman Catholic priest, which includes SSPX priests needs faculties from the local Roman Catholic bishop in order to witness the marriage of a Catholic man and a woman. If he doesn’t have those faculties, then the marriage is invalid because he does not have permission from the bishop to witness marriages. SSPX priests, with some rumored, extremely rare exceptions, do not have faculties from the local bishop. The SSPX argues the Church is in such bad shape that Canon Law grants then permission, supplied jurisdiction, but there is no indication that the Church supports that argument.

An Orthodox priest is not subject to the local Roman Catholic bishop, but the Orthodox bishop of the church that he belongs to. The same is true of an Eastern Catholic priest in that he is not subject to the local Roman bishop, but to his Eastern Catholic bishop. Due to a difference in the understanding of the theology of marriage between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and because the Eastern Orthodox will not accept the marriage of one their faithful in a Catholic church as valid, the Catholic church does not require a Catholic to be married by a Catholic priest if the spouse is Orthodox and in fact only requires permission from the Catholic spouses Roman Catholic bishop for licitness.

If an Eastern Catholic marries a Roman Catholic, the rite must be carried out by a priest, not a deacon, because Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) believe that the marriage is conferred by the priest, not the consent of the spouses as is accepted by the Roman Catholic theology.

 

[wynd]

In general, a Roman Catholic priest, which includes SSPX priests needs faculties from the local Roman Catholic bishop in order to witness the marriage of a Catholic man and a woman. If he doesn’t have those faculties, then the marriage is invalid because he does not have permission from the bishop to witness marriages. SSPX priests, with some rumored, extremely rare exceptions, do not have faculties from the local bishop. The SSPX argues the Church is in such bad shape that Canon Law grants then permission, supplied jurisdiction, but there is no indication that the Church supports that argument.

An Orthodox priest is not subject to the local Roman Catholic bishop, but the Orthodox bishop of the church that he belongs to. The same is true of an Eastern Catholic priest in that he is not subject to the local Roman bishop, but to his Eastern Catholic bishop. Due to a difference in the understanding of the theology of marriage between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and because the Eastern Orthodox will not accept the marriage of one their faithful in a Catholic church as valid, the Catholic church does not require a Catholic to be married by a Catholic priest if the spouse is Orthodox and in fact only requires permission from the Catholic spouses Roman Catholic bishop for licitness.

If an Eastern Catholic marries a Roman Catholic, the rite must be carried out by a priest, not a deacon, because Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) believe that the marriage is conferred by the priest, not the consent of the spouses as is accepted by the Roman Catholic theology.

Probably a topic for another thread, but does this extend to all SSPX sacraments or just marriage?

 

[Hospodi_pomilui]

Probably a topic for another thread, but does this extend to all SSPX sacraments or just marriage?

The other sacraments can be validly received from SSPX clergy. Only the bishops confirm. Confessions were a problem for the same reasons as marriages until last year when the Pope allowed Catholics who go to confession to an SSPX priest to absolved validly. He extended that permission in the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera which was released a few days ago.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.pdf

 

[twf]

It’s actually a problem that you would attend a simulation of a Christian rite. But I was commenting more so on the fact that the Latin mind goes immediately to validity, no need to get defensive.

If I’m expected to defend the Georgian Orthodox because we’re all ambiguously Eastern (“or something”), the one who holds that idea will be thoroughly disappointed. Nor is that an analogous situation. That’s polemical rather than legalistic. It isn’t prompted by the adherence to the application of a technical principle, but rather a petty polemic.

Completely understandable. I was just commented more so on a general trend than, again, this particular instance.

I’m sorry for coming across a bit defensive. I’m not so sure I would call it the simulation of a Christian rite. These communities are conferring what they truly believe to be baptism in good conscience. It just so happens the Church has ruled these “baptisms” to be invalid. I think attendance would depend on a number of factors, such as your relationship with the individual. Of course it would be very different if we were talking about a Catholic who had left the Church for another faith.
I didn’t expect you to defend the Georgian Orthodox. I’m just not sure the stereotypes of Western legalism are always fair. I think it is an example of Eastern legalism mixed with polemics - a rigid adherence to canons forbidding prayer with heretics.

 

[malphono]

I didn’t expect you to defend the Georgian Orthodox. I’m just not sure the stereotypes of Western legalism are always fair. I think it is an example of Eastern legalism mixed with polemics - a rigid adherence to canons forbidding prayer with heretics.

I’m not getting involved in this but I’ll offer an my unsolicited :twocents: anyway: it seems to me the whole Georgian thing was actually more political than anything else.